Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38443501›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2024

Laparoscopic versus open surgery in obstructive colorectal cancer patients following stents placement: a comprehensive meta-analysis of cohort studies.

Kerui Zeng, Faqiang Zhang, Hua Yang, Xiaoying Zha, Shixu Fang

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kerui ZengDepartment of Colorectal Anal Surgery, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China. 505106053@qq.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3385-4243
Faqiang ZhangDepartment of Colorectal Anal Surgery, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Hua YangDepartment of Colorectal Anal Surgery, Zigong Fourth People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Xiaoying ZhaDepartment of Wound Care Center, Department of Colorectal Anal Surgery, Zigong Fourth Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Shixu FangDepartment of Colorectal Anal Surgery, Zigong First People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China.
Zigong First People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past decade, the use of stent placement as a bridge to surgery (BTS) has emerged as an alternative to emergency surgery for patients with (OCRC). However, the optimal surgical approach remains indeterminate. This study seeks to evaluate the safety and feasibility of a combined treatment modality involving stent placement and laparoscopic surgery for OCRC presenting with malignant obstruction.

methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted until June 2023 to identify studies that compared laparoscopic to open surgery in patients with OCBC following stent insertion.

resultsThe meta-analysis incorporated 12 cohort studies, encompassing 933 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the 30-day mortality rates between the two groups (relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 4.48; P = 0.95). Compared to the laparoscopic approach group, the open approach group had a higher rate of overall postoperative complications (POCs) (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.72, P < 0.0001). There was no significant variance in lymph node (LN) dissection number between the groups (mean differences [MD], 1.64; 95% CI - 1.51 to 4.78; P = 0.31). Notably, laparoscopic surgery resulted in less intraoperative blood loss (MD, - 25.84 ml; 95% CI - 52.16 to 0.49; P = 0.05) and a longer operation time (MD, 20.99 mins; 95% CI 2.31 to 39.44; P = 0.03). The laparoscopic approach was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LOS) (MD - 3.29 days; 95% CI - 5.27 to 1.31; P = 0.001). Conversely, the open approach group had a higher rate of postoperative surgical site infection (SSI) (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.96, P = 0.04). Although the number of included studies was insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis, several of them imply that laparoscopic surgery may yield more favorable outcomes in terms of the 3-year overall survival rate (OS), 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS), 5-year OS, and 5-year DFS when compared to open surgery. It is worth noting that these differences lack statistical significance.

conclusionIn patients with OCRC subjected to stent insertion, laparoscopic surgery arguably presents a modest superiority over open surgery by diminishing the overall postoperative risk and potentially reducing the LOS.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsIntestinal ObstructionLaparoscopyStentsCohort StudiesHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsColorectal cancerLaparoscopic surgeryOpen surgeryPostoperative complicationsStent insertion

Identifiers

PMID38443501
PMCPMC10978680
OpenAlexW4392450456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.